recruitment and retention in child welfare...
TRANSCRIPT
Recruitment and Retention in Child Welfare Services:A Survey of Child Welfare League of CanadaMember Agencies
Madeleine Anderson and Shalan Gobeil
Centre of Excellencefor Child Welfare
Centre d’excellence pour la protection et le bien-être des enfants
Anderson, M., Gobeil, S. (2002). Recruitment andRetention in Child Welfare Services: A Survey ofChild Welfare League of Canada Member Agencies.Ottawa, ON: Child Welfare League of Canada.
Recruitment and Retention in Child Welfare Services:A Survey of Child Welfare League of Canada MemberAgencies was published by the Centre of Excellencefor Child Welfare for the Child Welfare League ofCanada (CWLC). Funding for the survey wasprovided to the CWLC by the McConnell FamilyFoundation. The exploratory survey was conductedwith a small number of agencies and may not berepresentative of all agencies across Canada.
The Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare is one of five Centres of Excellence for Children’s Well-Being funded by Health Canada.The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the officialpolicies of Health Canada.
Non-commercial reproduction of this report inwhole or in part is permitted, provided the authorsand the Child Welfare League of Canada areacknowledged as the source on all copies.
This publication can be downloaded from thewebsite of the Centre of Excellence for ChildWelfare at www.cecw-cepb.ca. Hard copies areavailable at cost from:
Child Welfare League of Canada209-75 Albert StreetOttawa, Ontario K1P 5E7Tel: (613) 235-4412, ext. 24E-mail: [email protected]
© Child Welfare League of Canada, 2003
ISBN # 1-896297-10-2
The fact is that good people with good minds and good hearts are drawnto the human and social services. Yet, realities of the enormity of problemspeople in need face, of the incredible tangles of bureaucracy and of theendlessness of it all are real problems when we talk about recruiting andretaining staff.
—Ruth Mayden, National Association of Social Workers
Table of contents
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview/Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Background of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Work environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Working conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Salaries and benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Profile of the agencies surveyed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Distribution of staff positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Positions’ status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Volunteers and Board members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Academic and non-academic requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Salary levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Length of employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Staff turnover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
i) Vacancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12ii) Preventable turnover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Findings and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Work environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
i) Problems experienced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14ii) Strategies employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15iii) Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Working conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16i) Problems experienced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16ii) Strategies employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17iii) Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Salaries and benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19i) Problems experienced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19ii) Strategies employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19iii) Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Summary of recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Acknowledgements
We would like to first acknowledge the generous support of the McConnell Foundation, without
which this work would never have been completed.
We also owe a debt of gratitude to our project advisory members, who shared their expertise
throughout the project. They were Marie Boone at the Cape Breton Children’s Aid Society; Jean
Boudreau with the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec; Margot Herbert of the University
of Calgary; and Mike Balla, Chief Consultant with Balla Consulting and the Child Welfare League
of Canada.
We sincerely thank the people in the agencies who devoted time and energy to responding to the
survey and hope that, as a form of compensation, the information contained in the report will be
of benefit to them.
And lastly, thank you to Peter Dudding for his patience and support.
We take full responsibility for the final document, including any errors or omissions that it may
contain.
A Survey of CWLC Member Agencies 1
Overview/Context
A shortage of trained, competent child welfare workers1 is hampering the ability of organizations
and governments to build the organizational capacity needed to deliver high quality services.
Canadian child welfare organizations are aware of these systemic issues and are beginning to
adopt proactive measures. The planning and preparation of workforce strategies is an essential
step to ensuring that agencies have the capacity to develop a workforce with the skills and
knowledge needed in the increasingly complex, demanding climate in which today’s child welfare
services are being evaluated.
The Child Welfare League of Canada (CWLC) collaborated with the McConnell Foundation to
commission the following survey, with these intentions:
• To provide a snapshot of the scope and nature of factors contributing to the current and
anticipated shortage among child welfare workers being faced by CWLC member
agencies
• To identify areas of congruence between the findings in the literature and the experiences
of a selection of child welfare agencies across the country
• To identify some of the strategies being implemented within agencies to address the
shortage
• To assist the CWLC in determining appropriate actions to be taken in response to what
agencies are now experiencing as well as what support/strategies they perceive they will
need in the future
• To allow for a sharing of information within the CWLC
2 Recruitment and Retention in Child Welfare Services
1 For the purposes of this report, the terms “child welfare workers” and “workers” refer to social workers in childprotection agencies, children’s mental health centres and residential young offender programs. The academicqualifications of these workers range from Child and Youth Worker Diplomas to master’s level social work degrees.
Background of the study
Current difficulties in child welfare agencies in the areas of staff recruitment and retention arebecoming an increasingly critical preoccupation of agencies responsible for the mental health andwell-being of our children and youth. Although agencies vary widely, both experts and service-providers report a current shortage of child welfare workers. Despite the lack of comprehensivedata on the nature and extent of the shortage, it is expected to become more serious in the future,as the demand for child welfare workers shows no sign of decreasing.2 Like the general population,the workforce is aging, and we are faced with a shrinking pool of new workers to replace those whoare retiring. The Conference Board of Canada has predicted that by 2020 the country will be facinga shortage of one million skilled workers. In addition, numerous studies report decreased levels ofjob satisfaction among both direct service and supervisory staff, potentially leading to theirpursuing other occupations in less traditional workplaces such as high tech.3
The research reviewed for this study comes from the US and Canada. Three main studies formedthe groundwork: In Critical Demand: Social Work in Canada, a study completed in April 2001 bythe Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) in partnership with the CanadianAssociation of Schools of Social Work (CASSW); The Child Welfare Workforce Challenge, a reportby the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) published in 2001; and Recruitment andRetention of Child Welfare Staff, a national survey commissioned by the Directors of Child Welfarein Canada under the Child Welfare Capacity Building Project, which has not yet been released.
For the purposes of this paper, we have extracted from the literature three main categories ofissues that impact directly, to varying degrees, the ability of agencies to recruit and retain childwelfare workers: work environment, working conditions and salaries and benefits. For the sake ofsimplicity, we will trace the trends identified in the current research using the same categories.
Work environmentIt is important to state up front that, in today’s markets, social work is suffering from a significantimage problem, and child welfare has the worst image of all. There is little glory left in the profession,with workers often receiving negative publicity in the media4 and little recognition for an extremelycomplex job.5 As a direct result, child welfare work is not appealing to many younger workers,6
recruitment is difficult, and retention, specifically in protection work, is highly problematic.
A Survey of CWLC Member Agencies 3
2 Alwon & Reitz (2000 a); O’Neil (2001a).
3 CWLA (2001); Ewalt (1991); O’Neil (2001a).
4 Alwon & Reitz (2000 a); Alwon & Reitz (2000 b); CASW & CASSW (2001); O’Neil (2001b); Zunz (1998).
5 CASW & CASSW (2001); Drake & Yadama (1996); Zunz (1998).
6 Alwon & Reitz (2000 b); CASW & CASSW (2001).
In a presentation at the 2001 Finding Better Ways Conference put on by the CWLA, Joan Ryecraft7
identified four main factors as influencing the ability of agencies to retain workers: mission,supervision, personal investment and goodness of fit.
The most common complaint by workers is that they feel generally undervalued8 and isolated.9
Social work’s mission and a commitment to the safety and well-being of children have always beenimportant factors in attracting caring, competent staff into child welfare professions. Agencies that“talk the talk but don’t walk the talk,” thereby failing to live up to their own values and philosophies,are cited as creating real disillusionment among employees.10 One of the reasons for this appears tobe a dissonance between the theories of social work learned in school and the realities of practice,resulting in disillusionment and discouragement. A significant level of concern around the qualityof education in the field of social work.11 Numerous young, inexperienced and idealistic workers arecoming into the profession, with insufficient or inadequate training in direct child welfare services.12
In the literature, weak leadership is strongly linked to feelings of isolation, frustration, stress andburnout at direct service and supervisory levels.13 Indeed, poor agency management is frequently citedas being more significant an issue than financial considerations in terms of job satisfaction ratings.14
There is strong evidence that open and caring relationships, guidance, partnerships andempowerment of staff are important elements in retention.15 The feeling of belonging to acommunity and having a solid peer support network at work reduces burnout at managementand front line levels. Too often this feeling of community is absent in agencies, wherecommunication, support and recognition are undervalued.16
Another important factor cited in the literature is the lack of perceived or real options for promotionor internal movement.17 Dedicated staff need to feel that their skills and interests are well matched totheir job description and need to have a degree of job mobility to ensure the quality of this fit. Theresearch points to opportunities for career growth, learning and development as leading factorsinfluencing staff retention.18 A lack of training opportunities on the job at front line and managementlevels19 leaves employees feeling trapped and promotes movement outside the agency.
4 Recruitment and Retention in Child Welfare Services
7 Ryecraft (2001).
8 Alwon & Reitz (2000 b); CWLA (2001); Soderfeldt, et al. (1995).
9 Alwon & Reitz (2000 a); CASW & CASSW (2001).
10 Alwon & Reitz (2000 b); Ryecraft (1994); Zunz (1998).
11 Alwon & Reitz (2000 b); O’Neil (200 b); Samantrai (1992).
12 Alwon & Reitz (2000 a); CASW & CASSW (2001); Samantrai (1992); Soderfeldt, et al. (1995).
13 Alwon & Reitz (2000 a); Corliss & Corliss (1999); CWLA (2001); Ryecraft (1994); Samantrai (1992); Soderfeldt, etal. (1995); Zunz (1998).
14 Alwon & Reitz (2000 a); CWLA (2001); Vinokur-Kaplan, et al. (1994).
15 Alwon & Reitz (2000 a).
16 Alwon & Reitz (2000 a) ;CWLA (2001); Soderfeldt, et al. (1995); Zunz (1998).
17 Vinokur-Kaplan, et al. (1994).
18 Kaye & Jordan-Evans (2000).
19 Alwon & Reitz (2000 a); CWLA (2001); Ryecraft (1994); Corliss & Corliss (1999).
Finally, there is a danger, within the context of the current workforce crisis, to overlook the
importance of diversity and cultural competence within the field. “Linking diversity to culturally
competent client services will create an organizational culture that will help recruit and retain a
more diverse and highly motivated staff better able to deliver high quality services.”20
Working conditionsWorking conditions within the field of child welfare are generally perceived as being poor. As
service demands increase21 caseloads become a critical factor in employee job satisfaction.22
Workers and supervisors alike report an increasing complexity in the nature of problems faced by
clients, which, when coupled with the inadequate level of experience that many new workers bring
into the job, results in huge task strain. A recent study in Alberta found that 43% of child welfare
workers have less than two years of direct experience.23
Heavy workloads are cited as being another major factor affecting job satisfaction.24 Workers are
managing an array of roles (including support person, guardian, advocate and investigator),
which, by virtue of their very nature, are in conflict with one another and are a constant source of
stress.25 As well, the number of apprehensions and court appearances is increasing at an alarming
rate,26 adding to the stress under which employees are working. Because of this growth, direct
service staff report that up to 50% of their time is spent on administrative duties and that policies
and procedures are heavy and cumbersome (specifically documentation and assessment).27 The
obvious impact of this is an increase in the number of hours required to meet the demands of the
job and a simultaneous decrease in the time spent on direct services.
Lack of resources is reported as an impediment to being able to deliver quality services; however,
this ranges widely from agency to agency.28
Unsafe working conditions are a less prevalent concern in the more recent research studies,
appearing to really become an issue in recruitment and retention only after workers are already
feeling disillusioned and isolated.29 That said, they continue to contribute significantly to the
complexity and stress of child welfare work, and they need to be acknowledged and addressed.
A Survey of CWLC Member Agencies 5
20 Dalano & Larsen (2001).
21 Alwon & Reitz (2000 b); CASW & CASSW (2001); Ryecraft (1994); Vinokur-Kaplan, et al. (1994).
22 CASW & CASSW (2001); CWLA (2001); Ewalt (1991); O’Neil (2001 b);Ryecraft (1994); Drake & Yadama (1996);Soderfeldt, et al. (1995).
23 Kinjerski & Herbert (2000).
24 Alwon & Reitz (2000 b); Ewalt (1991); O’Neil (2001 b); Ryecraft (1994); Samantrai (1992); Vinokur-Kaplan, et al. (1994).
25 Callahan (1993).
26 CASW & CASSW (2001);Drake & Yadama (1996); O’Neil (2000 b); Soderfeldt, et al. (1995).
27 Alwon & Reitz (2000 a); Corliss & Corliss (1999);CWLA (2001); Samantrai (1992).
28 Alwon & Reitz (2000 b); Vinokur-Kaplan, et al. (1994).
29 Alwon & Reitz (2000 b); Samantrai (1992).
Interestingly enough, financial compensation is cited far less frequently as a source of job
satisfaction than are recognition and support by management.
The additional isolation and lack of resources inherent in child welfare work in remote areas,
specifically the northern regions, are not well documented in the literature. However, there is
evidence that the needs of workers must be considered within the context of their family units and
that supportive working conditions become even more important in these remote communities.30
Salaries and benefitsAlthough the American literature points to salaries as an important element in recruitment and
retention, the Canadian research identifies salaries as being secondary to overall job satisfaction
and clearly less important in recruitment and retention than other organizational issues. Studies
have identified huge discrepancies in pay scales between agencies,31 and certainly for those at the
lower end of the scale, low salaries do figure in the hiring and retention of qualified workers.32 As
in many fields, there appears to be a trend toward the hiring of non-permanent contract workers
at higher salaries but without benefits.33
Studies show worker dissatisfaction with workload increases not being met by either salary
increases or any other form of recognition.34 The often significant gaps between direct service and
management positions, coupled with low salary caps, do not reward workers for remaining at the
front line for any significant period of time, nor do they encourage lateral movement.35 The
impact that this has on retention of qualified direct service workers is evident.
Finally, the cost of recruitment, the time that it takes to fill a position and the recruitment
strategies used vary significantly from agency to agency. Often agencies do not have either the
funds or the human resources expertise required to develop and launch effective recruitment
procedures, putting them at a severe disadvantage in a highly competitive recruitment climate.36
As well, the difficult living conditions and restrictions of the local labour pool in the more remote
regions of the country present their own challenges.
6 Recruitment and Retention in Child Welfare Services
30 CASW & CASSW (2001).
31 Alwon & Reitz (2000 b); CWLA (2001).
32 Alwon & Reitz (2000 b); CWLA (2001); O’Neil (2001 b);CASW & CASSW (2001).
33 Alwon & Reitz (2000 b).
34 Alwon & Reitz (2000 b); CWLA (2001).
35 CWLA (2001); O’Neil (2000 a).
36 CWLA (2001); O’Neil (2001a); Alwon & Reitz (2000 b).
Methodology
The first phase of the project consisted of a review of the current literature, a list of which can be
found in the bibliography. The sources were identified through the CWLC, project advisory
members and academic references.
A survey encompassing qualitative and quantitative data was developed and sent to 36 CWLC
member agencies across Canada. The agencies were identified to ensure representation from
different regions as well as to target a fairly even rural/urban split. The response rate was 44%,
with 16 completed surveys. This low rate may have been due in part to some agencies having
already completed a similar survey recently commissioned by the Directors of Child Welfare. The
juxtaposition of these two studies, while unfortunate in some ways, will hopefully allow for
comparisons of findings, contributing to the relevance of both.
Interestingly enough, although we received only 16 responses, several of them were completed for
more than one agency, resulting in a total of 12,144 full-time equivalent staff positions
represented in the results. Specifically, the response from Quebec represents the largest number of
employees, which may at times skew the results. Although this complicated the analysis process,
we feel that it contributed to the relevance of the results.
Although our survey was qualitative and quantitative, we are very clear that the small number of
completed surveys does not allow for any kind of accurate statistical analysis. Our results are
intended to provide an anecdotal representation of the issues facing a small number of agencies,
and readers should not draw any wider conclusions.
Given the nature and scope of the study, we decided to explore recruitment and retention problems as
an interdependent unit. The results of the survey did not allow us to gather the kind of data necessary
to complete a separate analysis of the problems experienced by agencies in recruitment and in retention.
Although most surveys were completed by a group of people, the data can only be interpreted as
representing the current situation as “perceived” by middle and upper management.
Another complicating factor was that the questions about numbers and length of employment of
full-time, part-time, permanent and casual staff posed a challenge for those filling out the survey.
Several respondents were unable to complete this section fully. As a result, the numbers may be
slightly skewed, and we have limited our quantitative analysis of this section to the reported
number of FTE staff.
The survey questions as well as the draft report of the findings were submitted to an advisory
group for feedback. The advisory group consists of five members and includes representation
from the four sectors surveyed. The group has expertise in human resources, child welfare
practices, unionized environments and community-based agencies.
A Survey of CWLC Member Agencies 7
Profile of the agencies surveyed
The following analysis is based on survey results from a small representative sample of child
welfare, children’s mental health and children’s residential and young offender programs across
Canada. Feedback consists of 16 survey37 responses, representing 12,144 employees, with rural
(37%), urban (46%) and remote (17%) representation from the western,(19%) eastern (13%),
central (38%) and northern (31%) regions of the country.
Surveys received indicated that agencies were providing all or some of the following services:
• Child Welfare (29%)
• Children/Youth Mental Health (23%)
• Children/Youth Residential Services (35%)
• Young Offenders (13%)
Generally, human resources staff, program managers, supervisors or directors filled out the surveys.
Again, although most surveys were completed by a group of people, the data can only be
interpreted as representing the current situation as “perceived” by middle and upper management.
Distribution of staff positionsTable 1 illustrates the distri-
bution of the types of positions
within the agencies, breaking
them down into three different
categories: direct services (75%),
supervisory (8%) and admini-
strative (17%). Answers to the
questions about the ratio of
supervisors to direct service
workers ranged widely from
response to response as well as
from program to program. In 20% of cases, the ratio was 1:15 or higher; in 26.7% of cases it was
between 1:7 and 1:10; in 33% of cases it was between 1:4 and 1:6; and in 20% of cases it was either
lower than 1:3 or not reported.
8 Recruitment and Retention in Child Welfare Services
37 Some agencies responded individually while others responded for their association of agencies.
0
1,500
3,000
4,500
6,000
7,500
9,000
10,500
12,000
13,500
Table 1 Number of full-time equivalents
Direct services Supervisory Administrative Total(paid positions)
Volunteerpositions
9,109
9372,097
12,142
893
Positions’ statusTable 2 presents the categories of employment, comparing the percentage of permanent, non-
permanent, contractual and volunteer positions. The percentage of permanent full-time positions
(64.45%) is surprisingly high and may have been raised by the government agencies. The
combination category (23.20%) reflects the surveys where respondents combined their responses
(for example, grouping their responses into two categories, such as full-time/part-time).
We had expected to find a much
higher percentage of contract
workers and have no clear ex-
planation for the low numbers,
except to say that they may be
hidden in the “combination”
category. This section of the
survey proved to be problem-
atic for some respondents (see
Methodology), which impacted
considerably on the clarity and
validity of the results.
Volunteers and Board membersWithin the responding agencies, there were 893 volunteers (including Board members), with length
of service averaging between three and five years. Our questions focused on the requirements for
becoming a Board member, not on other volunteer recruitment and retention issues. These
requirements mainly have remained stable, with a few exceptions where agencies have raised the
expectations. Board members and tightened the criteria. Requirements for becoming a member
were fairly general, with community membership and age being most common. Specific skill sets,
such as business, fundraising, education, or related service experience were only required 10% of
the time. In general the essential criteria appeared to be availability and willingness.
Academic and non-academic requirementsWe asked about the minimum academic requirements for direct services or clinical positions,
supervisory and management positions (Table 3). We also asked for the non-academic requirements or
the level of experience. Overall, we wanted to know if these had changed in the past 10 years and why.
Most of the direct services or clinical positions required a minimum of some academic qualification.
Over half of the positions required a university degree, with 27% requiring a bachelor’s degree and
24% a master’s degree. Typically, these would be in the area of Social Work, Psychology,
Criminology, Counselling or Education. A Ph.D. in Psychology or a degree in Psychiatry was also
A Survey of CWLC Member Agencies 9
Table 2 Position’s status
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Full-time,permanent
Part-time,permanent
Full-time,contractual
Part-time,contractual
Volunteer Combination
64.45
6.080.55 0.41
5.31
23.20
required by some agencies
(5%), particularly those pro-
viding services to the severely
mentally ill or to children
and/or youth with complex
mental health issues. A college
diploma (Child and Youth
Worker Diploma or related
diploma) with a combination
of relevant experience (27%)
was also being considered.
Many of the college diplomas were found in residential settings, and some surveys indicated that
“fill-ins” with minimal qualifications were also common for short periods of time.
Interestingly enough, 36% of the positions required no direct service experience, and 32%
required only 1–2 years.
The minimum academic requirements for a Supervisory Position were a Child and Youth Worker
Diploma (14%), a bachelor’s degree (52%) or a master’s degree (19%). The remaining 15% were
not specified in the survey responses and are accounted for in the “other category.”
The supervisory positions had a higher level of non-academic requirements. These varied from
2–3 years of experience (31%), to 4–5 years of experience (19%) to 5–6 years of experience (25%).
Other requirements included clinical experience and/or direct supervision experience. The
remaining positions were reported as having no defined non-academic requirements at all.
Management positions generally required a master’s degree (48%), a bachelor’s degree (33%), a
Child and Youth Worker Diploma (10%), or doctorate level certification (5%). For the most part
(64%), these types of positions required anywhere between 5 and 8 years of supervisory or
equivalent management experience. Of the remaining agencies half required a combination of
field experience and supervisory experience and half did not have standardized requirements.
In all the job categories, agencies combined their academic and non-academic requirements. For
example, a candidate with a master’s degree would be considered for a supervisory position. If
another candidate had only a bachelor’s degree, that candidate would also be considered if she or
he had three years of non-academic experience as well.
For the most part (57%), these academic or non-academic requirements have changed in the past
10 years, with agencies choosing, in fairly equal numbers, to raise either the academic
requirements or the non-academic requirements (years of experience). There was also a trend
toward increasing the minimum requirements for residential workers.
In general, the academic requirements appear fairly consistent across agencies. The results clearly reflect
the general lack of direct service experience required of new employees that is reported in the literature.
10 Recruitment and Retention in Child Welfare Services
Table 3 Minimum academic requirements
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Bachelor OtherCYW/Collegediploma
PhD Degree inEducation
Masters
Direct services/Clinical positions
Management positionsSupervisory positions
2724
5 3
27
0
52
19
0 0
14 15
33
48
50
10
4
Salary levelsIn the reporting of salary levels, we noticed a considerable discrepancy between some of the residential
and counselling services. For the most part, direct service salary levels range between $25,001 and
$70,000, with minimum and maximum average annual salaries reported at $40,000 and $52,500
respectively (Table 4).
For supervisory positions, the reported salary levels range between $35,001 and $70,000, with minimum
and maximum average annual salaries reported at $47,000 and $55,000 respectively (Table 5).
All agencies reported salary levels as having increased in the past 10 years. Reasons cited included
meeting pay equity requirements, increments to meet union scales, cost-of-living increases,
remaining competitive and changing position descriptions to reflect the need for professional
staff. Quebec agencies, however, which account for a large percentage of our results, had their
salaries frozen for four years.
As we analyze the problems currently facing agencies and the solutions that they are
implementing to encourage recruitment and retention (later in the report), we see that, while
salaries are often considered to be a barrier, raising salaries is not a highly effective tool for
improving the recruitment and retention of employees.
A Survey of CWLC Member Agencies 11
Table 4 Salaries – Direct services/Clinical positions
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
25,001–30,000 65,001–70,00055,001–60,00045,001–50,00035,001–40,00060,001–65,00050,001–55,00040,001–45,00030,001–35,000
Minimum annual salary
Maximun annual salary
16
32
11
16
11
5
11
0 00
5 5
11
21
26
16
11
5
Table 5 Salaries – Supervisory/Management positions
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
$30,001–35,000 $40,001–45,000 $50,001–55,000 $60,001–65,000$35,001–40,000 $65,001–70,000$55,001–60,000$45,001–50,000
0 0
6
11
22
17 17
28
6
12
29
12
18
24
0 0
Minimum annual salary
Maximun annual salary
Length of employmentLooking at the FTE direct service workers, we found that 27% left within the first three years, 40%stayed between four and seven years, and 33% remained eight years or more. In supervisorypositions, 23% left within the first three years, 31% remained for up to 9 years, and 46 % had beenat the agency for over 10 years. In administration, 8% left within the first year, 38% stayed betweenthree and seven years, and 54% remained for over nine years.
The part-time and contract positions were difficult to evaluate because of the lack of datasubmitted in these categories; however, the terms of employment were generally reported as beingmuch shorter, averaging one to three years.
Regarding average lengths of employment, the clear trend was that employees either left withinthe first few years or stayed for a prolonged period of time. This was particularly evident in thenorthern, more remote regions. Although our survey did not collect data on the average ages ofemployees, it would be interesting to see how the changing demographics in this country willaffect the average length of employment at the supervisory and administrative levels.
Staff turnover
i) VacanciesOverall, 550 FTE positions were reported vacant (about 5% of the total FTEs in the system). In 83%of the surveys, respondents indicated that the recruitment process has become “more difficult,”38
whereas 17% indicated that it was either “about the same” or “much more difficult.” The reasonscited for the recruitment process becoming more difficult were as follows (in order of importance):
• Shortage of human resources
• Challenges in finding qualified workers
• Lack of workers with the right educational background
• Increased competition for staff
• Need to hire across the province (which delays the process)
• New graduates leaving for larger urban centres
• Job-related duties (difficult)
• Shift work
• Increase in standards
• Economic conditions that attract people to other sectors
• Recruitment process is more time-consuming
• Lack of workers with experience in multicultural issues
• Inappropriate salaries
38 The scale was “much easier,” “easier,” “about the same,” “more difficult” or “much more difficult.”
12 Recruitment and Retention in Child Welfare Services
In terms of time required to fill vacancies for direct service positions, (38%) were filled in less than6 weeks, (44%) in 6–12 weeks and 19% in over 12 weeks. For management/supervisory positions,25% were filled in less than 6 weeks, 42% in 6–12 weeks and 33% in over 12 weeks.
The overall financial cost of filling these positions averaged between $1,000 and $4,000, with widevariation between respondents. This variation may have been partially due to different interpretations ofwhich processes to include in the estimate. Costs of filling positions in more remote regions were higher.
The most significant barriers to recruitment involved availability of qualified staff, a finding supportedby the literature. The time required to fill vacant supervisory positions is significantly longer than fordirect service. Here again, the influence of demographics and the aging workforce may be impactingthe recruitment process. Considering that it takes, on average, 6–12 weeks to fill a position, coupledwith the high, complex workloads and difficult working conditions reported, the impact of thesevacancies might well be contributing to the overall stress in the child welfare workplace.
ii) Preventable turnoverFor the purposes of this survey, the term “preventable turnover” was defined as turnover that wasnot due to retirement, pregnancy, sickness, education or sabbatical leave.
For 27% of respondents, the rate of preventable turnover had remained stable over the previous10 years, whereas another 27% believed that it had decreased. Reasons given included these:
• A positive work environment
• Dedicated staffing team
• A program in place to address retention issues
• Results from exit interviews being used to better the work environment
• Annual staff turnover study
For (46%) of respondents, the preventable turnover rate had increased in the past 10 years. Thiswas due to the following:
• High stress levels of the job
• Market salary increases
• Increase in caseloads
• Increase in complexity of caseloads
• Increased level of qualifications
• Better/More attractive working conditions elsewhere
• Better advancement opportunities in other sectors
• Competition/Increased availability of positions
Once again, the theory that failure to compete with market conditions is affecting the ability ofchild welfare agencies to retain staff is supported by our findings, with a positive workingenvironment contributing to low turnover and poor working conditions compelling workers toseek employment elsewhere.
A Survey of CWLC Member Agencies 13
Findings and recommendations
This section will group the recruitment and retention challenges reported by agencies surveyed
within categories adopted earlier in the literature review: work environment, working conditions
and salaries and benefits. It will then address these same issues within the context of strategies
employed and will list recommendations.
In over 80% of surveys, respondents indicated having some form of process intended to identify
staff issues on an ongoing basis, including exit interviews (conducted in 60% of agencies), regular
staff meetings, open door policies, individual supervision, quality assurance process, union,
suggestion box, conflict resolution policy and staff surveys.
Work environment
i) Problems experiencedTable 6 ranks the problems identified by staff in the work environment in the following categories:
orientation for new staff, staff development, support, recognition, leadership, career advancement
opportunities and reinforcement that their work is useful. The ratings ranged from not
problematic to very problematic.
Almost 70% of respondents identified insufficient support and lack of recognition as somewhat
problematic or problematic, and 8% rated them as very problematic. Only 11% rated insufficient
support as not problematic, and less than 20% felt that lack of recognition was not problematic.
Lack of career advancement opportunities and limited reinforcement that work accomplished was
useful were rated as very problematic in 19% and 12% of responses respectively. According to
these numbers, our findings support the literature in concluding that employees are looking for
support, recognition and career advancement opportunities within their organization.
14 Recruitment and Retention in Child Welfare Services
Table 6 Problems experienced – Working environment
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Not problematic Somewhat Problematic Problematic Very problematic
31
38
13
38
19
3131
44
25
50
25
50
3838
13
191919
13
16
1 16
16
19
13
Lack of orientationLimited staff development opportunitiesInsufficient supportLack of leadershipLack of recognitionLack of career advancement opportunitiesLimited reinforcement that work accomplished is useful
ii) Strategies employed
Strategies that have been implemented with a goal of improving employee satisfaction within the
work environment were rated as not effective, somewhat effective or very effective (Table 7). The
results were as follows:
• Increased training opportunities: Implemented in 60% of responses, rated as somewhat
effective or very effective almost 100% of the time.
• Increased career advancement opportunities: Implemented in 32% of responses, rated as
somewhat effective or very effective almost 100% of the time.
• Increased supervision: Implemented in 67% of responses, rated as somewhat effective or
very effective 90% of the time, not effective 10% of the time.
• Multicultural policies: Tried in 20% of agencies, not effective 50% of the time, very
effective 22% of the time.
• Peer support/Mentoring program: Implemented in 26% of responses, somewhat effective
or very effective 70% of the time.
• Stress management training: Implemented in 20% of responses, not effective 60% of the time.
• Formalized orientation: Implemented in 60% of responses, never very effective, not
effective 28% of the time, somewhat effective 72% of the time.
• Individualized workplans: Implemented in 40% of responses, very effective 29% of the
time, somewhat effective 58% of the time.
• Performance appraisal process: Tried in 72% of responses, never very effective, somewhat
effective almost 90% of the time.
• Recognition of employee’s effort and commitment: Tried in 80% of responses, very
effective over 40% of the time, somewhat effective 60% of the time.
A Survey of CWLC Member Agencies 15
0
20
40
60
80
100
Yes Not effective Somewhat effective Very effective
Table 7 Strategies employed – Working environment
33
6067
2027
20
60
40
7380
11
10
50
25
60
29
1411
1
8380
70
25
50
20
71
57
89
58
1720 202525
20
1
29
1
42
Increased training opportunitiesIncreased career advancement opportunitiesIncreased supervisionImplemented multicultural policiesPeer support/Mentoring programStress management trainingFormalized orientationIndividualized workplansPerformance appraisal processRecognition of employee’s effort and commitment
The working environment was most impacted by increased training opportunities, career
advancement opportunities and increased supervision.
The results indicate the importance of fostering a climate where direct service staff are offered
opportunities to develop additional skills and knowledge, with the goal of encouraging job
mobility within an organization whether it be lateral or upward. The literature supports this notion
that honest and compassionate relationships, direction and involvement in decision making are
empowering for direct service staff and are essential ingredients in successful retention strategies.
Linking agencies closely with colleges and universities might serve to better prepare workers for
the realities of child welfare work. It could also increase the ability of agencies to access ongoing
training opportunities.
The ratio of supervisors to direct service workers varied considerably among the agencies
surveyed, with some agencies reporting more than 15 employees per supervisor whereas others
reported a ratio as low as 1 to 3. Our survey results draw attention to the importance of strong
leadership qualities in the supervision of child welfare work. Given the difficult and stressful
nature of child welfare work, inadequate levels of supervision and support would make it very
difficult for some agencies to successfully implement the above strategies.
iii) Recommendations• Develop strong supervisory training programs.
• Prioritize relevant in-service training opportunities for all staff.
• Promote agency mission and values that are developed and supported by staff, not for
staff. Ensure that the agency is “walking the talk.”
• Develop and implement agency-specific strategies that provide better support to workers
and between workers in order to increase worker morale and effectiveness.
• Regularly reassess the “goodness of fit” between individuals and their job description
while acknowledging personal limitations as well as the limitations of the system.
Working conditions
i) Problems experiencedThe survey sought feedback on eight possible contributors to working conditions being perceived
as unfavourable. They were too much travel time, poor overall working conditions, lack of
appropriate resources, high stress level, high workload, too much bureaucracy, safety concerns
and difficult/long working hours. The conditions were rated as ranging from not problematic to
very problematic (Table 8).
16 Recruitment and Retention in Child Welfare Services
High stress level was identified as being either problematic or very problematic in 70% of cases. A
heavy workload was labelled as very problematic in almost 40% of cases. In 50% of responses,
long working hours were problematic or very problematic.
Interestingly, poor working conditions, lack of resources and too much travel time were rated as
not problematic in over 43% of the cases, and none of the three held any ranking in the very
problematic category. Too much bureaucracy was rated as somewhat problematic in 45% of the
cases, not problematic in 19% of the cases and problematic in another 19% of the cases.
ii) Strategies employedStrategies employed to improve working conditions were also rated as not effective, somewhat
effective or very effective, and the results were as follows (Table 9):
• Increased safety measures: Implemented in 60% of responses, somewhat effective almost
80% of the time, very effective 10% of the time.
• Decreased overtime: Implemented in 12% of responses, somewhat effective 100% of the time.
• Increased flexibility in working hours: Implemented in 40% of responses, very effective
68% of the time.
• Decreased workload: Implemented in 20% of responses, somewhat effective 75% of the time.
• Increased vacation (leave time): Implemented in 20% responses, very effective 100% of
the time.
• Job-sharing: Implemented in 33% of responses, somewhat effective 100% of the time.
• Job rotation: Implemented in 40% of responses, somewhat effective 100% of the time.
• Improved job location: Implemented in 20% of responses, very effective in 32% of cases.
• Technological support: Implemented in 54% of responses, very effective 12% of the time,
somewhat effective 86% of the time.
A Survey of CWLC Member Agencies 17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 Poor working conditionsLack of appropriate resourcesHigh stress levelWorkload too highToo much bureaucracySafety concernsToo much travel timeDifficult/Long working hours
Not problematic Somewhat problematic Problematic Very problematic
Table 8 Problems experienced – Working conditions
44
50
1313
38
56
19
25 25
19
13
25
44
38
25
13 13
19
44
1919
13
6
38
1 1
25
38
61 1
13
• Increased flexibility in job duties: Implemented in 54% of responses, not effective 12% of
the time, somewhat effective or very effective 88% of the time
• Improved job-related tools: Implemented in 54% of responses, somewhat effective or
very effective 100% of the time.
Decreasing overtime and workload expectations, and increasing vacation (leave) time and
opportunities for job flexibility were strategies that ranked as highly successful when implemented.
This supports the findings in the literature that employees are facing a significant increase in the
number of hours required to meet the demands of the job, as well as experiencing higher levels of
stress associated with complex caseloads. It is important to acknowledge, however, that many child
welfare agencies work within financial constraints that limit their ability to implement these
strategies. For remote communities, isolation may further compound these challenges.
Although the literature does not cite unsafe working conditions as being a major concern of child
welfare workers, it does speak to the increasing complexity of caseloads. Interestingly enough,
increasing safety measures was the strategy most used overall and seemed to be successful.
iii) Recommendations• Encourage flexible working conditions (vacation and leave time, “flex” time, job-sharing)
where possible.
• Review size and complexity of caseloads.
• Revisit the time spent on administrative duties.
• Address worker safety through training, policies and procedures.
18 Recruitment and Retention in Child Welfare Services
0
20
40
60
80
100
Yes Not effective Somewhat effective Very effective
Table 9 Strategies employed – Working conditions
Increased safety measuresDecreased overtimeIncreased working hours flexibilityDecreased workloadIncreased vacation (leave time)Introduced job-sharingJob rotationImproved job locationTechnological supportIncreased flexibility in job dutiesImproved job-related tools
60
13
40
20 20
3340
20
53 53 53
11
1 1
25
1 1 1 1 1
13
1
78
100
75
33
1
100100
88
67
57
67
100
11
1 1 1 1
13
33
43
13
75
Salaries and benefits
i) Problems experiencedLow salaries and poor benefit packages
were ranked from being not problematic to
being very problematic (Table 10). Salaries
ranked as very problematic in only 10% of
responses, and only somewhat problematic
or problematic 50% of the time. In 10% of
cases, salaries were ranked as not
problematic at all. Benefits were seen as not
problematic almost 50% of the time, and
very problematic or problematic only 10%
of the time.
ii) Strategies employedIncreasing salaries and benefits has been
problematic for many agencies due to
fiscal restraints and salary freezes. Salary
increases were implemented in 47% of the
cases, and were rated as very effective 14%
of the time and somewhat effective 86% of
the time (Table 11). Improvements to
benefits were tried in 33% of agencies,
where they were rated as very effective
20% of the time and somewhat effective
80% of the time.
Increases to salaries and benefits were effective in a limited way. Similarly, in the literature, financial
compensation is cited less frequently than are recognition and support on the part of management.
iii) Recommendations• Identify salary increases as a priority in agencies where they fall short of the marketplace
norms, taking into account workload, experience and living conditions.
A Survey of CWLC Member Agencies 19
Table 10 Problems experienced – Salaries and benefits
0
10
20
30
40
50
Not problematic Somewhatproblematic
Problematic Veryproblematic
Low salariesPoor benefit package
13
50
38
19 19
6
13
6
Table 11 Strategies employed – Salaries and benefits
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Yes Noteffective
Somewhateffective
Veryeffective
Increase in salariesIncrease in benefits
47
33
0 0
8680
1420
Conclusion
Surveyed agencies indicated that recruiting and retaining workers has become more difficult over the
past 10 years. Although the overall vacancy rate is fairly low at 5%, there is a clear trend toward high
turnover rates within the first two years of employment, after which it remains fairly stable. All agencies
surveyed are actively addressing current and predicted staff shortages as well as a growing dissatisfaction
among child welfare workers by implementing some level of recruitment and retention strategies.
Overall, improving salaries and benefits did not appear to be particularly successful, whereas
strategies that addressed working environment and working conditions seemed to be the most
effective in recruiting and retaining workers.
Our survey results concur with current literature in identifying the most effective retention and
recruitment strategies as being ones that encourage job flexibility and mobility as well as training
and career advancement opportunities in a supportive environment where the work
accomplished is both recognized and validated.
Implementation of some recommendations could occur on a national level, and this could be
spearheaded by the CWLC. Others may be best addressed on a regional level, with pooling of
resources among agencies serving to facilitate realization. In other instances, agency-specific
approaches may be most effective.
Given the number of recent studies on issues of recruitment and retention and given that
recommendations are similar from study to study, the focus should be on using mechanisms that
will facilitate sharing of information as well as of resources. To facilitate this process, local
subcommittees could be created (either regionally or provincially). These would be spearheaded
by the CWLC and would be mandated to do the following:
• Analyze and prioritize the recommendations. (Seeking input from direct services staff at
a local level would be an important prerequisite for prioritization.)
• Determine their impact locally.
• Determine their feasibility.
• Develop an implementation plan for those recommendations that could be implemented.
• Develop a strategic plan for those recommendations that could not be implemented but
that are deemed a priority.
• Identify successful marketing tools and approaches by region.
• Develop strategies to attract more diversity in recruits.
• Draw on all opportunities to improve the public image of child welfare work in general,
and more specifically, the area of child protection.
20 Recruitment and Retention in Child Welfare Services
Summary of recommendations
• Develop strong supervisory training programs.
• Prioritize relevant in-service training opportunities for all staff.
• Promote agency mission and values that are developed and supported by staff, not for
staff. Ensure that the agency is “walking the talk.”
• Develop and implement agency-specific strategies that provide better support to workers
and between workers in order to increase worker morale and effectiveness.
• Regularly reassess the “goodness of fit” between individuals and their job description
while acknowledging personal limitations as well as the limitations of the system.
• Encourage flexible working conditions (vacation and leave time, “flex” time, job-sharing)
where possible.
• Review size and complexity of caseloads.
• Revisit the time spent on administrative duties.
• Address worker safety through training, policies and procedures.
• Identify salary increases as a priority in agencies where they fall short of the marketplace
norms, taking into account workload, experience and living conditions.
A Survey of CWLC Member Agencies 21
Bibliography
Alwon, F.J., & Reitz, A.L. (2000 a) Empty chairs. Children’s Voice, Nov 2000, 35–37.
Alwon, F., & Reitz, A. (2000 b). The workforce crisis in child welfare: An issue brief. Washington: ChildWelfare League of America Press.
Beaucar, K. (2000). What’s more important than a child? NASW News, National Association of SocialWorkers Inc. Washington, D.C.
Callahan, M. (1993). “The Administrative and Practice Context: Perspectives from the Front Line: in BrianWharf (Ed.) Rethinking Child Welfare in Canada. (1993) Toronto: McLelland & Stewart. 64–97.
Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) & Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work(CASSW). (2001). In critical demand: Social work in Canada. Sector Study
Child Welfare League of America (CWLA); Alliance for Children and Families; American Public HumanServices Association. The child welfare workforce challenge: Results from a preliminary study, May 2001.(Study conducted in collaboration among the authoring organizations.) Washington, DC.
Corliss, L.A., & Corliss, R.A. (1999). Advanced practice in human service agencies: Issues, trends, andtreatment perspectives. Wadsworth Publishing Company 1998, California.
Cyphers, Gary. (2002). Changes we can make: States identify strategies for workforce improvement.Protecting Children, 17 (3), 2–9.
Dalano, F. & Larsen, K. (2001). Beyond cultural diversity: Moving along the road to delivering culturallycompetent services. Presentation summary, 2001 Finding Better Ways Conference, CWLA.
Drake, B, & Yadama, G.N. (1996). A structural equation model of burnout and job exit among childprotective services workers. Social Work Research, 20 (3), 179–187.
Drucker, P. (2001). The next society. The Economist, Nov 03, 2001.
Ewalt, P. (1991). Trends affecting the recruitment and retention of social work staff in human servicesagencies. Social Work, 36 (3), 214–217.
Kaye, B, & Jordan-Evans. (2000). Retention: Tag, you’re it! Training and Development, 54, 29–34.
Kinjerski, V., & Herbert, M. (2000). Child welfare caseload growth in Alberta: Connecting the dots.
O’Neil, J. (2001a). Mayden recommends workplace improvements. NASW News, National Association ofSocial Workers Inc. Washington, D.C.
O’Neil, J. (2001b). Worker shortage spotlighted: Stage set for legislative action to alleviate problem. NASWNews, National Association of Social Workers Inc. Washington, D.C.
Regehr, C., Leslie, B., & Chau, S. (2000). Stress and trauma in child welfare practice. Canada’s Children,Summer 2000, 72–74.
Ryecraft, J.R. (1994). The party isn’t over: The agency role in the retention of public child welfarecaseworkers. Social Work, 39, 75–80.
Ryecraft, J.R. (2001). Making a career in child welfare: Personnel practices. Presentation summary, 2001Finding Better Ways Conference, CWLA.
Samantrai, K. (1992). Factors in the decision to leave: Retaining social workers with MSWs in public childwelfare. Social Work, 37, 454–458.
Savicki, V., & Cooley, E.J. (1994). Burnout in child protective service workers: A longitudinal study. Journalof Organizational Behaviour, 15, 665–666.
22 Recruitment and Retention in Child Welfare Services
Schmidt, G. (2000). How long are you staying? A report on the recruitment and retention of child welfareworkers in northern and remote locations. Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada, Cat. N52397-2.
Soderfeldt, M., Soderfeldt, B., & Warg, L.E. (1995). Burnout and social work. Social Work, 40 (5), 638–646.
Vinokur-Kaplan, D., Jayaratne, S., & Chess, W. (1994). Job satisfaction and retention of social workers inpublic agencies, non-profit agencies and private practice: The impact of workplace conditions andmotivators. Administration in Social Work, 18 (3), 93–121.
Zunz, S.J. (1998). Resiliency and burnout: protective factors for human service managers. Administration inSocial Work, 2293, 39–54.
A Survey of CWLC Member Agencies 23
TorontoFaculty of Social WorkUniversity of Toronto246 Bloor Street WestToronto ON M5S 1A1(416) 978-8845
MontréalInstitut de recherche pour
le développement social des jeunes
1001, de Maisonneuve Est7e étageMontréal QC H2L 4R5(514) 896-3570
OttawaChild Welfare League of Canada/Ligue pour le bien-être de l’enfance
du Canada209–75 AlbertOttawa ON K1P 5E7(613) 235-4412
First Nations Research SiteFirst Nations Child and Family
Caring Society of Canadac/o Faculty of Social WorkUniversity of Manitoba413A Tier BuildingWinnipeg MB R3T 2N2(204) 474-8261
www.cecw-cepb.ca
Centre of Excellencefor Child Welfare
Centre d’excellence pour la protection et le bien-être des enfants